If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Is this just the USA thread or general americas thread? Because in Brazil, a pro-military dictatorship, pro torture candidate Jair Bolsonaro is leading the polls with a staggering lead over the other candidates.

He's promising to make Brazil great again, and return it to the times of the military dictatorship, to a “time when Brazilians could still walk on the streets without fear”. He also seems to hate everyone non-white and non-straight. His supporters said that they need "a leader with energy and fight – like British prime minister Theresa May"

First results should be up in an hour or so. You need 50% of the votes to win on the first round, or a second round will follow with two candidates who got most votes on the first round.

It kinda helps him that he put the leading candidate in jail and barred him from running in the election...

Is this just the USA thread or general americas thread? Because in Brazil, a pro-military dictatorship, pro torture candidate Jair Bolsonaro is leading the polls with a staggering lead over the other candidates.

He's promising to make Brazil great again, and return it to the times of the military dictatorship, to a “time when Brazilians could still walk on the streets without fear”. He also seems to hate everyone non-white and non-straight. His supporters said that they need "a leader with energy and fight – like British prime minister Theresa May"

First results should be up in an hour or so. You need 50% of the votes to win on the first round, or a second round will follow with two candidates who got most votes on the first round.

It kinda helps him that he put the leading candidate in jail and barred him from running in the election...

Not really him, it was the Brazilian political establishment that did it. They are now surprised that other people are choosing to wipe their asses with democratic norms

First results should be up in an hour or so. You need 50% of the votes to win on the first round, or a second round will follow with two candidates who got most votes on the first round.

Polling stations opened at 8 a.m. (1100 GMT) and the last will close at 7 p.m. Brasilia time (2200 GMT). Exit polls and official results will start flowing in soon after that via Brazil’s electronic voting system.

"Holy shit, I ask you to stop being autistic and you debate what autistic is." - spasm

Is this just the USA thread or general americas thread? Because in Brazil, a pro-military dictatorship, pro torture candidate Jair Bolsonaro is leading the polls with a staggering lead over the other candidates.

He's promising to make Brazil great again, and return it to the times of the military dictatorship, to a “time when Brazilians could still walk on the streets without fear”. He also seems to hate everyone non-white and non-straight. His supporters said that they need "a leader with energy and fight – like British prime minister Theresa May"

First results should be up in an hour or so. You need 50% of the votes to win on the first round, or a second round will follow with two candidates who got most votes on the first round.

Why settle for "like Theresa May". They can have her. Air fare paid. I'll pay it.

I love to see resident leftists spit on Democrats and dream about true social justice. Yes, do keep masturbating to fully automated gay space communism. But in the meantime please don't vote, or if you do, vote only for 3rd parties.

the US is literately a single party state as recent shennanigans amply illustrate, voting there is largely meaningless for a great portion of the population due to the electoral system.

Yeah plus Democrats are effectively powerless right now at both state and federal level, and even if they do manage to wrest control back they are so meek and polite that they will still just go along with what ever the republicans want as always.

Funny how two years ago some people here were claiming the Republican party was dead. Now they are monolithicly powerful, and voting doesn't matter. Except, don't vote third party. People sure are dramatic.

Trump, and the insanity of the republican party is classic late-empire scenes, the US is, at most, a decade away from losing it's position as the "leader of the world" it all really depends on how the complete lack of response to the oncoming climate change freight train and the internal contractions of the US end up playing out.

the point of Kavanaugh is just as much to lock in the conservative ideology in the political system (and yes, Supreme court in the US is a highly political and politicized institution) as the inevitable tide of demographics and social friction literately kills off the republican voter base, it's a repeat of the pattern that caused the "lochner era" as the contractions and frictions of the gilded age eventually led towards a significant political backlash.

Originally Posted by Timaios

Is this just the USA thread or general americas thread? Because in Brazil, a pro-military dictatorship, pro torture candidate Jair Bolsonaro is leading the polls with a staggering lead over the other candidates.

He's promising to make Brazil great again, and return it to the times of the military dictatorship, to a “time when Brazilians could still walk on the streets without fear”. He also seems to hate everyone non-white and non-straight. His supporters said that they need "a leader with energy and fight – like British prime minister Theresa May"

First results should be up in an hour or so. You need 50% of the votes to win on the first round, or a second round will follow with two candidates who got most votes on the first round.

that guy is full on fash from what i've seen, so of course the conservatives are all over supporting his political agenda, no doubt he will be held up as a shining exsample of what to strive for as he quietly shuffles any and all opponents off to camps in the amazon rainforest.

Originally Posted by Ego Proxy

Originally Posted by Isyel

Originally Posted by Dorvil Barranis

Wait, so now it is the Dems fault Kavenaugh got appointed? Gotta explain that one to me.

It's in relation to them being pathetic and somehow unable to strongly get behind anything and get anything done anymore.

Or a more reasonable mind might consider that some continue to play by the spirit of the rules, and others have gone full got mine fuck you mode.

what rules ? the idea that there are "rules" or "civility" in politics is a fundamental misunderstanding of the stakes involved, it's not a fucking "team sport" where you have "respectable disagreements" with the "gentlemen" on the other side. it's a struggle over what ideals should govern society and who should hold the reigns of power with one side here evidently being quite chuffed about putting monumentally unfit individuals into positions of power.

Or a more reasonable mind might consider that some continue to play by the spirit of the rules, and others have gone full got mine fuck you mode.

what rules ? the idea that there are "rules" or "civility" in politics is a fundamental misunderstanding of the stakes involved, it's not a fucking "team sport" where you have "respectable disagreements" with the "gentlemen" on the other side. it's a struggle over what ideals should govern society and who should hold the reigns of power with one side here evidently being quite chuffed about putting monumentally unfit individuals into positions of power.

You mean it's a struggle over the right to say all men are created equal, just some are more equal than others?

Or a more reasonable mind might consider that some continue to play by the spirit of the rules, and others have gone full got mine fuck you mode.

what rules ? the idea that there are "rules" or "civility" in politics is a fundamental misunderstanding of the stakes involved, it's not a fucking "team sport" where you have "respectable disagreements" with the "gentlemen" on the other side. it's a struggle over what ideals should govern society and who should hold the reigns of power with one side here evidently being quite chuffed about putting monumentally unfit individuals into positions of power.

You mean it's a struggle over the right to say all men are created equal, just some are more equal than others?

you realize that quoting Orwell and imaging it's a "clever counterpoint" amply illustrates you know fuck all about what point he was making, who he was and why he was making it right ?

if you cannot see why viewing politics as a "civil discussion" rather than a struggle of ideals is the wrong way to go, then you're literately the embodiment of the the failure of the liberal centre that is typifying the entirety of the western world to some extend these years.

"Two bullets 'were found in pilot's body' after helicopter crash which killed senior Putin prosecutor linked to lawyer who held Trump Tower meeting"

It's a mystery why the pilot of the helicopter that crashed had bullets in his body, it's possible this affected his ability to fly the aircraft properly but disputed by experts

capping the pilot of a moving chopper that's high enough to kill the passengers when it crashes is, if nothing else, a impressive feat of marksmanship, of course it's the daily heil, so who knows what's actually true.

Or a more reasonable mind might consider that some continue to play by the spirit of the rules, and others have gone full got mine fuck you mode.

what rules ? the idea that there are "rules" or "civility" in politics is a fundamental misunderstanding of the stakes involved, it's not a fucking "team sport" where you have "respectable disagreements" with the "gentlemen" on the other side. it's a struggle over what ideals should govern society and who should hold the reigns of power with one side here evidently being quite chuffed about putting monumentally unfit individuals into positions of power.

You mean it's a struggle over the right to say all men are created equal, just some are more equal than others?

you realize that quoting Orwell and imaging it's a "clever counterpoint" amply illustrates you know fuck all about what point he was making, who he was and why he was making it right ?

if you cannot see why viewing politics as a "civil discussion" rather than a struggle of ideals is the wrong way to go, then you're literately the embodiment of the the failure of the liberal centre that is typifying the entirety of the western world to some extend these years.

Those that play by the rules believe the immortal declaration, and struggle to hold themselves up to it's ideal. Those that don't want to play by the rules style themselves as the rich white men that wrote those words, the privileged holders of capital, and want to enslave anyone that dares stand in their way. Orwell's quote is merely ironic.

"Two bullets 'were found in pilot's body' after helicopter crash which killed senior Putin prosecutor linked to lawyer who held Trump Tower meeting"

It's a mystery why the pilot of the helicopter that crashed had bullets in his body, it's possible this affected his ability to fly the aircraft properly but disputed by experts

capping the pilot of a moving chopper that's high enough to kill the passengers when it crashes is, if nothing else, a impressive feat of marksmanship, of course it's the daily heil, so who knows what's actually true.

Maybe he was shot from inside the helicopter by a beautiful femme fatale FSB agent who parachuted to safety, lots of loose ends conveniently tied up and all it took was a few bullets!

Or a more reasonable mind might consider that some continue to play by the spirit of the rules, and others have gone full got mine fuck you mode.

what rules ? the idea that there are "rules" or "civility" in politics is a fundamental misunderstanding of the stakes involved, it's not a fucking "team sport" where you have "respectable disagreements" with the "gentlemen" on the other side. it's a struggle over what ideals should govern society and who should hold the reigns of power with one side here evidently being quite chuffed about putting monumentally unfit individuals into positions of power.

You mean it's a struggle over the right to say all men are created equal, just some are more equal than others?

you realize that quoting Orwell and imaging it's a "clever counterpoint" amply illustrates you know fuck all about what point he was making, who he was and why he was making it right ?

if you cannot see why viewing politics as a "civil discussion" rather than a struggle of ideals is the wrong way to go, then you're literately the embodiment of the the failure of the liberal centre that is typifying the entirety of the western world to some extend these years.

Those that play by the rules believe the immortal declaration, and struggle to hold themselves up to it's ideal. Those that don't want to play by the rules style themselves as the rich white men that wrote those words, the privileged holders of capital, and want to enslave anyone that dares stand in their way. Orwell's quote is merely ironic.

nobody with even a passing understanding of history is that naive, to assume that politics is a "polite game of compromise" is to cede control to the opposition, you're literately advocating the chamberlain solution.

nobody with even a passing understanding of history is that naive, to assume that politics is a "polite game of compromise" is to cede control to the opposition, you're literately advocating the chamberlain solution.

Except that even as an outsider I can see and understand that USA system was made in a way to necessitate bipartisanship and compromise. How many different items require (or required until "nuclear options" were triggered) a 60 vote majority in Senate?

nobody with even a passing understanding of history is that naive, to assume that politics is a "polite game of compromise" is to cede control to the opposition, you're literately advocating the chamberlain solution.

Except that even as an outsider I can see and understand that USA system was made in a way to necessitate bipartisanship and compromise. How many different items require (or required until "nuclear options" were triggered) a 60 vote majority in Senate?

you're again making the assumption that both sides abide by the "politics is a game of compromise" perspective, when they obviously do not.

what actually happens is that the republicans take the most extreme position their base allows them to get away with, and sit there going "NUH-UH!" until they get what they want, and because conservatives are traditionally the "the state is bad !" party they've got every incentive to maintain that position because it makes the federal state looks awful in the process. this is endemic to 2 party systems and why they are all awful by default, you've basically got a prisoners dilemma playing out incentive one side or the other to be a "bad actor" so the only reasonable way to behave is like a "bad actor" and we haven't even gotten to why the "it's just a game!" approach is morally bankrupt yet!

the american electoral system was designed to keep power in the hands of the landed slave-owning elite and as far away as possible from the dirty proles coming off the ships on the east coast, wanting to homestead in the frontier, and it does this very well indeed.

nobody with even a passing understanding of history is that naive, to assume that politics is a "polite game of compromise" is to cede control to the opposition, you're literately advocating the chamberlain solution.

Except that even as an outsider I can see and understand that USA system was made in a way to necessitate bipartisanship and compromise. How many different items require (or required until "nuclear options" were triggered) a 60 vote majority in Senate?

you're again making the assumption that both sides abide by the "politics is a game of compromise" perspective, when they obviously do not.

what actually happens is that the republicans take the most extreme position their base allows them to get away with, and sit there going "NUH-UH!" until they get what they want, and because conservatives are traditionally the "the state is bad !" party they've got every incentive to maintain that position because it makes the federal state looks awful in the process. this is endemic to 2 party systems and why they are all awful by default, you've basically got a prisoners dilemma playing out incentive one side or the other to be a "bad actor" so the only reasonable way to behave is like a "bad actor" and we haven't even gotten to why the "it's just a game!" approach is morally bankrupt yet!

the american electoral system was designed to keep power in the hands of the landed slave-owning elite and as far away as possible from the dirty proles coming off the ships on the east coast, wanting to homestead in the frontier, and it does this very well indeed.